CAR_Public/030923.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Tuesday, September 23, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 188

                        Headlines                            

AMERICAN CEMWOOD: Notification For Roofing Shakes Pact Commences
BAYER AG: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Say Baycol Litigation To Continue
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Brief Reveals KY Priest's Abuse of Teenage Girl
CHRONIMED INC.: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MN
COMPUTER FIRMS: CA Consumers File Suit Over Deceptive HD Claims

FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: AHP Suit Trust Sues Cardiologist For Fraud
GAYLORD CHEMICAL: Trial Starts in Suit Over Rail Tank Explosion
ILX RESORTS: Timeshare Holders Sue Over Deception, Fraud in AZ
INTERVOICE INC.: TX Court Dismisses Amended Securities Lawsuit
JCPENNEY: Haitian Files Civil Rights Suit Over Racial Profiling

KMART CORPORATION: MI Court Dismisses Suit for Securities Fraud
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: Pres. Bush Pushes Congress To Limit Damages
METABOLIFE INTERNATIONAL: Witness in Ephedra Trial Challenged
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: FL Firms Urged To Take Part in $202M Pact
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: CA Consumers Notified of Antitrust Pact

NEW YORK: Police Dept Reaches Race Bias Lawsuit Settlement
ORACLE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Suit Dismissal
OREGON: Lawsuit Filed Seeking Further Reduction in Pension Rates
PRUDENTIAL LIFE: Man Files Suit To Seek Claims For Stillborn Son
SIMON PROPERTY: CA Consumers Launch Suit Over Gift-Card Policies

US NAVY: DC Court Says Members of Selection Board Should Testify
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Appeals Court Upholds Certification For Suit
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Lenders Risk Homeowners' Mortgage Coverage
WESTERN AUTO: Settles Suit Over Racial Discrimination For $6.8M

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BANK OF AMERICA: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BANK ONE: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
BANK ONE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. OH
CHECK POINT: Shepherd Finkelman Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CHECK POINT: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Suit in S.D.NY

DVI INC.: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. PA
EMERSON RADIO: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Stock Suit in TX
JANUS CAPITAL: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in CO Court
LORAL SPACE: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY

MUTUAL FUNDS: Brualdi Firm Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MUTUAL FUNDS: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuits
STRONG CAPITAL: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in WI Court
STRONG FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Files Stock Lawsuit in CA

SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in CA

                        *********

AMERICAN CEMWOOD: Notification For Roofing Shakes Pact Commences
----------------------------------------------------------------
Court-ordered notification under the direction of Judge Carter
P. Holly of the Superior Court of California, County of San
Joaquin, has begun to inform property owners about a proposed
additional $75 million settlement in the class action related to
roofing shakes manufactured by American Cemwood Corporation.

The settlement is in addition to a partial settlement that was
Court-approved on May 26, 2000, bringing the total settlement
fund to $140 million.  To date, more than $48 million in claims
for qualifying damage have been paid.

Notices are scheduled to appear in national newspaper
supplements and regional editions of magazines, as well as
mailed to those who have previously submitted their addresses,
leading up to a hearing on November 18, 2003, when the court
will consider whether to approve the settlement.

"Cemwood Shakes" - made to look like real wood - are all cement
and wood fiber composite roofing tiles and shakes manufactured
by American Cemwood, including, but not limited to:

     (1) Permatek,

     (2) Permatek II,

     (3) Royal,

     (4) Cemwood and Cascade shakes, and

     (5) Pacific Slate and Trieste tiles

The settlement pays valid claims for damage to Cemwood Shakes,
including cracking, lifting, warping, or softening of the
Shakes, and/or roof leaks due to damaged Shakes.  The settlement
includes all individuals and entities that owned, own, or
acquire property on which Cemwood Shakes are or have been
installed in the following states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.  Cemwood Shakes in Colorado
are not part of this settlement.

Those affected by this settlement can send in a claim form to
ask for a payment, or object to the settlement by November 6,
2003.  Payment amounts will be determined by whether a claimant
has qualifying damage, roof size, and the number of claims made.  
Those who have already sent in a claim do not have to do
anything.  The deadline to file claims is in February of 2015.  
This allows those who have Shake damage in the future to
qualify; however, the fund is limited and claims should be filed
as soon as possible.

For more details, contact the parties in the settlement by Mail:
American Cemwood Roofing Settlement, P.O. Box 4540, Portland, OR
97208-4540 by Phone: 1-800-708-3266 or visit the Website:
http://www.cemwoodclaims.com.


BAYER AG: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Say Baycol Litigation To Continue
---------------------------------------------------------------
German drug giant, Bayer AG (NYSE:BAY), faced with thousands of
Baycol lawsuits across the country, now must assess what impact
a Court Order, denying class action status, will have on the
company.

Instead of proceeding in one, unified proceeding or in several
coordinated proceedings, the cases - estimated at about 11,000 -
will proceed individually, trial by trial.  To date, Bayer has
paid out over $477 million on only 1,342 of the claims which
have been brought by individuals injured by Baycol.

Lead attorney for the Plaintiffs, Charles Zimmerman, noted, "Our
clients will still have their day in court; it will just involve
a lot more courtrooms, more time, more lawyers and more
expense."  Asked for a comment on announcements by Bayer's
lawyers, declaring the denial of class action status a victory,
Co-lead attorney, Richard Lockridge, responded, "Given the
number of individual cases now facing Bayer, this is a pyrrhic
victory for them.  I think Bayer and its shareholders are the
practical losers here."

Without the consolidation afforded by a class, Bayer is likely
to face ongoing, costly and lengthy litigation, both in the
federal case in Minnesota, as well as in multiple state court
cases.  Mr. Zimmerman observed that "now, the calculus changes.
Now, Bayer must deal with the same liability spread over
multiple individual cases. Compounding of expense without a
reduction in liability must necessarily cause Bayer to ask
itself whether this is a real victory."

The costs related to the withdrawn drug have already been
significant.  In its latest Annual Report, Bayer AG reports
expending 229 million Euros in "Other Operating Expenses" during
2001. Of this amount, Bayer reports 57 million Euros in charges
related to the market withdrawal of Baycol.  During 2002, the
costs reported for this category rose to 298 million Euros.

During the same time period, Bayer also reported increased
administrative expenses.  According to Mr. Zimmerman, "in light
of this recent decision, which contemplates thousands of
individual trials, there is every reason to believe that '03,
'04 and '05 will witness a significant increase in expenses."

Critically, Bayer has reported that it may not have adequate
insurance to cover the thousands of pending claims and, as of
the end of 2002 had not made ``provision'' should the liability
exceed the coverage.  Mr. Lockridge and Mr. Zimmerman suggested
that the company may have to revisit that position.  Mr.
Zimmerman and Lockridge once again urged Bayer to get
appropriate compensation to the injured parties as promptly as
possible and not allow this procedural ruling to be a basis for
delay.

Plaintiffs' attorneys also took issue with representations in a
press conference by one of Bayer's lawyers.  During the press
conference, it was represented that the court rejected all
arguments by Plaintiffs.  Mr. Zimmerman responded that actually,
"what the court confirmed is that the injuries from Baycol were
so serious, from so many different states, from so many
different doses, at so many different times . that Bayer had
created an overwhelming problem, too difficult to manage in one
case. I am not sure how this amounts to a `significant victory'
for Bayer."

According to Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Lockridge, "There's a long
way to go.  In the past 24 hours, we have visited with dozens of
attorneys around the country about the court order.  These
attorneys all agreed that they will begin to prepare their cases
for trial.  Everyone remains fully committed to doing everything
we can to obtain meaningful recovery to people injured by
Bayer's drug, Baycol."

For more details, contact Charles S. Zimmerman by Phone:
612-341-0400 or contact Richard A. Lockridge by Phone:
612-339-6900


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Brief Reveals KY Priest's Abuse of Teenage Girl
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations that Sacramental Minister Stephen Gallenstein, who
is actively practicing with Good Shepherd Parish in Frankfort,
in the Diocese of Lexington, Kentucky, sexually abused a teenage
girl twenty years ago, surfaced from a 37-page legal brief
containing allegations against 18 unidentified priests,
Associated Press Newswires reports.

Attorneys who were seeking information about complaints of
sexual abuse by priests and the diocesan response compiled the
brief as part of a potential class action.  A Boone County judge
ordered that the files from the Covington Diocese be released to
the lawyers.  Lexington Diocese split from the Covington Diocese
in 1988.

The allegations of the sexual abuse are contained in a part of
the brief, which outlines examples of alleged abuse by priests
and cover-ups by church officials in the Diocese of Covington
since 1953.  The names of the churches where some of the priests
worked were included in the court papers and tied up with the
allegations made by an unidentified woman who claimed the priest
sexually abused her for four years starting when she was 13 and
then stalked her for another 10 years.

Bishop Ronald W. Gainer placed Reverend Gallenstein on leave
when the information was placed before him while he was
attending a Vatican orientation for newly ordained priests in
Rome.  Bishop Gainer will review the matter as soon as he
returns from the Vatican, said Thomas Shaughnessy, spokesman for
the Lexington Diocese.


CHRONIMED INC.: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chronimed, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers.

The complaint alleges that the Company and individual defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the individual
defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On July 11, 2003, the Company and plaintiffs agreed to settle
the case and all claims.  Under the settlement, which is subject
to court approval, the Company will pay $2.2 million, which will
be distributed to the class members and counsel.  


COMPUTER FIRMS: CA Consumers File Suit Over Deceptive HD Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several computer firms face a class action filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court in California by American PC users, alleging that
they deceptively advertised the hard drive capacity of their
computers, the Register reports.  The suit names as defendants
the world's biggest computer manufacturers:

     (1) Apple Computer,

     (2) Dell,

     (3) Gateway Inc,

     (4) Hewlett Packard,

     (5) IBM,

     (6) Sharp,

     (7) Sony and

     (8) Toshiba Corporation

Los Angeles residents Lanchau Dan, Adam Selkowitz, Tim Swan and
John Zahabian filed the suit, alleging that the notation used in
describing the capacity of hard disk drives in manufacturers'
promotional material is deceptive, Reuters reports.  For
example, a "20 GB" hard drive would only have 18.6 GB usable
capacity.  The suit seeks an injunction to force vendors to
curtail the practice, and damages to be levied against the
defendants.


FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: AHP Suit Trust Sues Cardiologist For Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The AHP Settlement Trust, the entity created to process claims
related to the Nationwide Class Action "Fen-Phen" Settlement
Agreement, today sued Kansas City, Missouri cardiologist Linda
Crouse, MD for directing the filing of fraudulent claims in what
has been called "a mass production operation that would have
been the envy of Henry Ford."

The complaint, filed in federal court in Philadelphia, alleges
that Dr. Crouse intentionally defrauded the Trust by falsely
certifying that thousands of claimants had serious valvular
heart disease (VHD) thereby causing the Trust to pay millions of
dollars in false claims and delaying compensation to legitimate
claimants.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that on thousands of
occasions during a three-year period, Dr. Crouse, departed from
normal practices and professional standards by failing to
complete the steps required to reach a reasonable medical
determination of the existence of VHD.

Altogether, Dr. Crouse signed more than 2,500 certification
forms, each time swearing under oath that the claimant suffered
from VHD that could not be attributed at least in part to the
presence of other factors.  Her practice, said Federal Judge
Harvey Bartle III in a decision reached last year, "resembled a
mass production operation that would have been the envy of Henry
Ford."

Dr. Crouse "acted in a grossly negligent, outrageous, wanton and
reckless fashion when she certified to the Trust that thousands
of Claimants had this medical condition without taking the
analytical steps required to make such a determination," the
complaint alleges.

"Dr. Crouse's actions and inactions harmed the AHP Settlement
Trust by causing it to pay millions of dollars to persons who
did not have VHD.  Further, Dr. Crouse's actions and inactions
caused and continue to cause the AHP Settlement Trust to incur
substantial medical, legal and other fees to ensure that no
additional payments are made based on her false certifications
of persons who do not have VHD," the suit continued.

The complaint is one of several proactive efforts undertaken by
the Trust in its effort to fulfill its commitment to legitimate
claimants.  The Trust has developed a Claims Integrity Program
aimed at rooting out dishonest and unethical behavior within the
claims process and has established a website
(http://www.settlementdietdrugs.com)and telephone-based hotline  
(877-534- 3290) for those wishing to report specific instances
of dishonest behavior.

Under the 1999 settlement agreement, cardiologists and
cardiothoracic surgeons were required to undertake specific
procedures in order to certify the existence of VHD.  These
steps include the use of an echocardiogram, the taking a
claimant's medical history in order to rule out potential causes
of VHD other than the use of Fen-Phen, and others.  

According to The Trust's complaint, contrary to normal practices
and professional standards, Dr. Crouse certified claims without
spending the time required to properly conduct and interpret the
echocardiogram, to meet or examine the claimant, to take a
medical history, or to review medical records.  In almost all
cases, Dr. Crouse never met the person whose medical condition
she was certifying.

According to the complaint, Dr. Crouse had a team of
sonographers conducting echocardiograms for 12 hours a day, five
days a week.  More than 25 law firms engaged her to sign claims
forms, and for her work on behalf of only two of those firms,
she was paid more than $3.2 million in fewer than 11 months.
During one ten-month period, Dr. Crouse generated as many as 500
claims forms per week for just one law firm.

The lawsuit accuses Dr. Crouse of mail and wire fraud,
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO), conspiracy to violate RICO, intentional
misrepresentation and fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, gross
negligence, unjust enrichment and other violations.  The suit
seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, to be
determined at trial.

The AHP Settlement Trust has been established by order of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania to administer the Claims and payments of benefits
to class members who have registered under the Nationwide Class
Action Settlement Agreement with American Home Products
Corporation dated November 18, 1999, as amended.

The Settlement Agreement provides for a variety of benefits,
including refunds for the costs of Pondiminr and Redux(TM),
medical monitoring and some medical treatment or payment for
monitoring and treatment, and compensation for specifically
defined valvular heart conditions.


GAYLORD CHEMICAL: Trial Starts in Suit Over Rail Tank Explosion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial has commenced in a class action filed against Gaylord
Chemical Corporation, Gaylord Container Corporation and Union
Tank Car, nearly eight years after a union tank car exploded
outside of the Company's facility in Bogalusa, releasing a cloud
of nitrogen tetroxide, the Bogalusa Daily News reports.

In opening statements, attorneys for the plaintiffs alleged that
the explosion was caused by nitrogen tetroxide left in the tank
car for about 7-10 days.  The chemical, contaminated with water,
combined with the corroded pipes in the car to cause the
explosion.

The plaintiffs charged Union Tank Car with neglect, stating it
failed to investigate the corrosion and failed to inform Gaylord
Chemical of the car's impending dangers.  Union Tank Care also
allegedly neglected to use Teflon packing required by the
federal government in 1985 for handling five chemicals including
nitrogen tetroxide, the Daily News Reports.  Gaylord Chemical
was also charged with neglecting to take appropriate precautions
in case of such an event, and to inform the community of the
type of chemical that was released.

Defense attorneys stated that neither Gaylord Chemical nor Union
Tank Car were responsible for weighing, loading, and testing
samples from the railcar.  They added that Union Tank Car met
government specifications regarding the packing of the railcar
when it was specifically converted to a nitrogen tetroxide car
in 1982.

Eight randomly selected members of the class are due to testify
in the next 10-12 weeks.  Gaylord attorneys claimed during
opening statements that none of the fifteen representatives
claiming medical injury have incurred health conditions directly
related to the release.  The remaining three have claimed "fear,
fright" and economic loss and evacuation expenses as a result of
the explosion, the Bogalusa Daily News reports.


ILX RESORTS: Timeshare Holders Sue Over Deception, Fraud in AZ
--------------------------------------------------------------
ILX Resorts, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Coconino
Superior Court in Arizona over several of its timeshare resorts
in the Western US, including the Los Abrigados Resort and Spa in
Sedona, Arizona.  

The suit, filed on behalf of Kenneth Reed of Calgary, Alberta,
and George Cates of Oro Valley by attorneys Andrew Friedman of
Phoenix, James Ledbetter of Cottonwood and Janine Pollack and
Daniel Altman of New York City, alleges the Company operated on
a "pattern of deception" in several timeshare resorts, which
cost its timeshare members millions of dollars, the Arizona
Daily Sun reports.

The suit alleges the Company continued to sell timeshares and
memberships to its Premiere Vacation Club even after all 9,100
rooms at Los Abrigados were booked.  As a result, class members
couldn't sell their timeshares back without losing a substantial
amount of money and couldn't actually stay at the resort because
it is consistently overbooked.

Company timeshare holders were allegedly entitled to one week
per year at Los Abrigados.  If a person doesn't use the their
week, they lose those privileges for a year.  The suit goes on
to claim that those who were notable to use their week, despite
trying to do so, were charged up to $550 for maintenance fees at
the resort, the Sun continued.

The Los Abrigados resort allegedly booked rooms to the general
public without first fulfilling what was owed to the timeshare
owners and Premiere investors.

Nancy Stone, president of ILX Resorts Inc., declined to comment
last week, saying that her company has not seen the suit yet,
the Sun stated.


INTERVOICE INC.: TX Court Dismisses Amended Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas dismissed the amended securities class action filed
against Intervoice, Inc. on behalf of the Company's stockholder
from October 12,1999 through June 6,2000, the American City
Business Journals reports.

The suit alleges that some of the Company's executives issued
false and misleading statements concerning the financial
condition of the company, the results of the company's merger
with Brite Voice Systems Inc. in 1999 and the company's business
projections.  The plaintiffs said these alleged statements
resulted in artificially inflated stock prices.

The suit was originally filed in June 2001.  The court dismissed
the suit, but gave the plaintiffs leave to file a new one, which
they did.  The court's recent action dismisses the amended
complaint and does not give plaintiffs the opportunity to
reinstate the suit by filing a new amended complaint, Intervoice
said.  Still, stockholders can, if they choose, appeal the
dismissal, Intervoice said.


JCPENNEY: Haitian Files Civil Rights Suit Over Racial Profiling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Retail chain JCPenney faces a class action filed in New York
federal court, accusing the store of racial profiling, the New
York Post reports.

Haitian Claudie Pierre, 24, filed the suit, after JCPenney
security guards wrongly accused her of shoplifting.  Ms. Pierre
was stopped after she left the Queens Boulevard store.  She
claimed that she was held for three hours in a "detention area"
along with other non-white customers, and that a security guard
called her a "black bitch" while she was being detained.  The
store, however, never filed charges.

The suit charges the chain with violating minority shoppers'
civil rights through negligent training practices of its guards
and demands $150,000 in damages.  

Calls to JCPenney were not returned, the New York Post stated.


KMART CORPORATION: MI Court Dismisses Suit for Securities Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Michigan dismissed the
consolidated securities class action filed against Kmart
Corporation's officers, such as:

     (1) former Kmart chairman and chief executive Charles
         Conaway,

     (2) former President Mark S. Schwartz,

     (3) Jeffrey Boyer,

     (4) Matthew Hilzinger,

     (5) Martin E. Welch, and

     (6) the company's accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The suit alleges that Mr. Conaway made material misstatements or
omissions during the alleged class period that inflated the
trading prices of Kmart's common stock and seek, among other
things, damages under Section 10b-5 of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934.   The suit was filed on behalf of persons
on whose behalf the action was brought to include purchasers of
Kmart securities between March 13, 2001 and May 15, 2002, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story states.

Judge Gerald Rosen dismissed the suit, strictly on technical
legal grounds.  Congress may have set "a virtually unreachable"
standard for lawsuits that charge private companies with
securities fraud, he said, according to the Detroit News.  
Judge Rosen added that the shareholders failed to adequately
show evidence of fraud by the other defendants besides Mr.
Conaway, Mr. Schwartz and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

However, he qualified in his 65-page opinion that his decisions
should by no means ".be construed as giving defendants a
completely clean bill of health."  In fact, he said there is
sufficient evidence "supporting a strong inference" of an
intention to commit fraud on the part of Mr. Schwartz and Mr.
Conaway.

Judge Rosen asserted that the pair "renegotiated their contracts
. and both received substantial retention loans -- Conaway
received a $5 million retention loan just eight months before
Kmart's bankruptcy filing and defendant Schwartz received a $3
million retention loan just one month before the bankruptcy."

"Furthermore, just two months prior to the bankruptcy, defendant
Conaway continued to make positive statements concerning Kmart's
earnings and business," he continued according to the Detroit
News.

Schwartz's attorney, Brian Rosner of New York, however, praised
the ruling.  "We were right.  It's over.  What more is there to
say?" he said.


MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: Pres. Bush Pushes Congress To Limit Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
President Bush recently renewed his campaign against what he
considers abuses of the legal system, returning in a recent
radio address, to an interest that has remained mostly on the
sidelines during the first two years of his presidency, The
Miami Herald reports.

In his weekly radio address, President Bush urged Congress to
limit damage awards in medical malpractice cases, arguing that
lawsuits are sending malpractice insurance costs soaring,
thereby creating, he said, a shortage of doctors in many places.

The issue of medical malpractice, comprising part of a subject
sometimes called tort reform, has been a common theme for
President Bush in speeches for more than a year.  During the
recent radio speech, he also argued for comprehensive changes to
the nation's legal system.

"We need to address the broader problems of frivolous
litigation," the President said.  "We need effective legal
reforms that will make sure that settlement from class actions
and other litigation goes to those harmed and not to the trial
lawyers."

The White House is backing pending Republican legislation that
would sharply curtail lawyers' contingency fees in lawsuit
awards topping $100 million.  Democrats see the issue as
partisan, with Republicans targeting trial attorneys, who are
major sources of campaign donations for Democrats.


METABOLIFE INTERNATIONAL: Witness in Ephedra Trial Challenged
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Metabolife
International, marketers of Metabolife 356, which contains the
controversial weight loss supplement ephedra, has commenced in
the United States District Court in New Orleans, the Advocate
reports.

Dr. George Bray, a department head at Pennington Biomedical
Research Center and a professor at the Louisiana State
University, testified for the Company.  The research center is
studying the supplement, which is being used as stimulant for
cardiovascular and nervous systems.

Recently it has been linked to dangerous health complications
such as sudden cardiac death, strokes and seizures.  Thus,
several sports leagues and the US military banned the substance.  
In Louisiana, ephedra and its synthetic version, ephedrine, are
considered controlled substances.

Dr. Bray is considered "one of the foremost experts" on obesity,
Dr. Donna Ryan, associate executive director for clinical
research at Pennington, told the Advocate.  Dr. Bray stated in a
report for the suit, that more people taking ephedra in a
controlled study reported side effects than with other herbal
supplements.  However, he asserted that Metabolife can assist
obese people when nothing else seems to help.  

"For obese people, the benefits of using Metabolife 356
according to the directions more than offset the risks that can
be discerned from the available controlled trials," Dr. Bray
wrote.

However, the lawyers for the plaintiffs challenged the doctor's
assertions, calling his research tainted.  Lewis Unglesby and
Donna Grodner, attorneys who represent a group of people suing
Metabolife, say ephedra is dangerous and shouldn't be tested by
a center that allows staff members to serve as expert witnesses
for Metabolife.

"I realize Pennington can do what it wants," Mr. Unglesby said.
"But this guy is on the payroll."

Dr. Ryan refuted this, telling the Advocate that Dr. Bray serves
as an expert witness on health and obesity issues, but does not
work for Metabolife, nor does he endorse the products.  "He's
testified as an expert," Dr. Ryan said.  "He certainly has never
spoken on behalf of Metabolife."

Mr. Unglesby and Mr. Grodner said because ephedra is considered
a controlled substance in Louisiana and is dangerous, the
testing should have been done before the supplement went on the
market, the Advocate stated.  "If people have problems, then
they test them," Mr. Unglesby said. "It's upside down."


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: FL Firms Urged To Take Part in $202M Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several business could be qualified to participate in a $202
million settlement proposed by software giant Microsoft
Corporation for a class action charging it with violating
Florida's antitrust laws, the American City Business Journals
reports.

Businesses that purchased Microsoft products between November
1995 and December 2002, including stand-alone Microsoft software
or computers loaded with Microsoft operating systems or
applications could take part in the settlement.  They are
required to submit claims before a hearing in the 11th Judicial
District Court of Miami-Dade County on November 24, 2003.

Businesses with large numbers of computers may benefit greatly
because claims will be paid on a "per license" basis.

The firms representing the class are: Kirby McInerney & Squire
in New York; Lightfoot Franklin and White in Birmingham, Ala.;
and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in New York and San
Francisco, the release stated.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: CA Consumers Notified of Antitrust Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of California consumers and businesses have begun to
receive forms allowing them to claim up to $1.1 billion in
benefits from the settlement of an antitrust class action
lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation.  Over 10 million forms
will be mailed during the next 60 days.

California consumers and businesses will now have an opportunity
to recover a substantial portion of the prices they paid for all
of their Microsoft operating system, spreadsheet and word
processing software purchased during a seven year period ending
in December 2001.  Consumers can recover the first $100 of their
benefits just by listing their eligible Microsoft product
purchases on a claim form and signing their names.  Even larger
recoveries will be obtained by those who provide documentation
of more than five purchases of eligible Microsoft products.

The settlement is expected to provide substantial relief to the
thousands of California businesses whose technology budgets have
been cut drastically in recent years, according to Eugene Crew
and Richard Grossman, co-lead attorneys for the consumer class.

Mr. Grossman observed, "Medium and large businesses will recover
tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits.  Even
the smallest businesses are likely to recover thousands of
dollars."

He added, "A computer systems manager would be derelict in his
duties if he passed up this opportunity to beef up his
technology budget.  The claims process is pretty simple so we
expect business owners and executives to quickly file their
claims and pass along the news of this fabulous opportunity to
their colleagues."

After years of antitrust litigation directed at Microsoft, this
is the first time that Californians will be able to recover the
overcharges that Microsoft allegedly imposed upon its customers
as a result of its monopoly in key software markets.  While
prior antitrust claims against Microsoft focused only upon its
monopoly in desktop operating system software, the California
class action settlement also covers alleged overcharges in word
processing, spreadsheet and office productivity suite software.

Consumers and businesses with locations in California will be
able to recover $16 for each copy they purchased of Microsoft's
Windows or MS-DOS operating systems, $29 for each copy of
Microsoft Office, $26 for each copy of Microsoft Excel and $5
for each copy of Microsoft Word, Works Suite and Home Essentials
97 or 98.

According to Mr. Grossman, the $1.1 billion represents a refund
of approximately 22 percent of all the money paid for the
eligible software by California's consumers and businesses
between February 1995 and December 2001.  It is estimated that
over 14 million Californians are eligible to make claims under
the settlement.

Mr. Crew observed, "This is a great day for California antitrust
law.  We are confident this $1.1 billion settlement represents
the largest recovery ever achieved for consumers under
California's antitrust statute, but people have to file their
claims to get the benefits."

Mr. Crew added, "With so many people on the internet this should
spread like wildfire.  Consumers are going to forward the
www.microsoftcalsettlement.com website to all their friends and
family to make sure that everyone they know will be able to take
advantage of the settlement."

Consumers will be able to use their settlement benefits to
obtain refunds on their future purchases of any manufacturer's
desktop or laptop computers as well as printers, scanners,
monitors, keyboards, pointing devices (e.g. a mouse or
trackball) or any noncustom desktop software made by any
software developer for any operating system platform.

According to Mr. Grossman, "It was extremely important to us
that consumers have a choice of purchasing any competitive
product they want.  There was no way that we were going to limit
the settlement benefits to Microsoft products."

Mr. Crew added, "After all, consumer choice is what our
antitrust laws are all about."

For more information, contact Eugene Crew or Richard Grossman by
Mail: Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP, Two Embarcadero
Center, Eighth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 by Phone: (Eugene
Crew) 415-273-7520 (Richard Grossman) 415-273-7580 by E-mail:
ecrew@townsend.com or rlgrossman@townsend.com or visit the
website: http://www.microsoftcalsettlement.com


NEW YORK: Police Dept Reaches Race Bias Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The New York City Police Department settled a class action,
charging police officers with using racial profiling, according
to a report by Associated Press Newswires.

The lawsuit was filed in 1999 by plaintiffs who said they were
unjustly stopped and searched.  Under terms of the settlement,
the police department will train its officers better as to how
to carry out these duties.  The officers, in turn, will document
the instances when it stops and frisks people.  The city also
agreed to pay $167,500 in damages, which will be shared by 10
plaintiffs.

William Goodman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the deal will
mean that officers will "no longer engage in practices that
involve breaking up groups of kids on a corner merely because of
their race."  Blacks in the city have been subject to police
stops and searches at a higher rate than people of other racial
backgrounds, according to City Council records released in June.

The police say that the racial backgrounds of people stopped by
police are consistent with the backgrounds of violent-crime
suspects identified by victims.


ORACLE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the securities class action
against Oracle Corporation, its chief executive officer, its
chief financial officer and a former executive vice president in
the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
stock during the period from December 15, 2000 through March 1,
2001.  Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the Company's actual and expected
financial performance and the performance of certain of the
Company's applications products, while certain individual
defendants were selling Company stock, in violation of Federal
securities laws.  Plaintiffs further alleged that certain
individual defendants sold Oracle stock while in possession of
material non-public information.

On March 12, 2002, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.  On April 10, 2002,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the court again
dismissed.  Plaintiffs then filed another amended complaint.

In this second amended complaint, the plaintiffs added
allegations that the defendants engaged in accounting violations
and made misstatements about the Company's financial
performance, beginning on December 14, 2000.  On March 24, 2003,
the Court dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice.
Plaintiffs appealed that dismissal and, on August 11, 2003,
filed their appellate brief in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The defendants expect to file
their responses on October 8, 2003.


OREGON: Lawsuit Filed Seeking Further Reduction in Pension Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon's Public Employees Retirement System Board (PERS) faces a
class action filed in Marion County Circuit Court, alleging that
the new reduced rates imposed by the board on July 1 was not
enough, the Salem Statesman Journal reports.

In a landmark ruling against the pension fund, Marion Circuit
Judge Paul Lipscomb ordered the reduction of the fund's rates.  
However, PERS sought to delay making the fixes, while it
appealed the judge's ruling.  PERS lost that bid, but the appeal
is still pending.  

In its new rates, PERS didn't fully carry out all the demands
made by Marion Circuit Judge Paul Lipscomb in a landmark ruling
against the pension fund.  The PERS Board has tentatively agreed
to make changes in response to the ruling but hasn't yet
finalized that decision or translated it into reduced government
costs.

On June 30, PERS revised its initial 2003-05 charges to state
and local governments and dropped them by $360 million per year.  
That followed a trio of PERS reforms passed by the 2003
Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Ted Kulongoski.

However, a group of Oregon cities and counties filed the suit,
saying they didn't get enough relief from new rates imposed July
1 by the Public Employees Retirement System Board.  "We are
entitled to further rate reduction beyond what went into effect
in July," attorney Bill Gary told the Journal.


PRUDENTIAL LIFE: Man Files Suit To Seek Claims For Stillborn Son
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Life Insurance Co., and the United States government
face a lawsuit filed by a father seeking death benefits for
parents of thousands of stillborn babies, the Indianapolis Star
reports.

Michael Warnock of Kokomo filed the suit in the United States
Dsitrict Court in Indianapolis, Indiana, after the government
and the Company refused to pay a $10,000 claim he filed after
his son Joshua was stillborn on April 14, 2002.  The suit
alleges breach of contract and seeks to force a claim for the
stillborn son.  

Mr. Warnock was an Army reservist and is enrolled in the
military's Servicemembers Group Life Insurance program, which
covers soldiers and their spouses and children.  Prudential
collects $500 million annually in premiums to insure and
administer the program for the government, the Associated Press
reports.

His wife, Christine, was 38 weeks pregnant when the child was
stillborn.  Indiana law requires a burial for any child who dies
after 20 weeks of gestation.  However, most life insurance
policies do not cover children until they are at least 2 months
old, according to the Star.

Prudential said it would not pay for the claim because the
"child was (never) alive," Charleyne Gabriel, the couple's
attorney, told the Star.  Federal courts never have ruled
whether parents of stillborn children are entitled to life
insurance claims, she said.

If the suit is granted class certification, the class would be
expanded to allow other couples in the military's insurance
program and whose stillborn babies were in gestation for at
least 20 weeks to join the litigation.

Prudential had no comment on the case Friday since the matter is
being litigated, spokesman Bob DeFillippo of parent company
Prudential Financial, based in Newark, NJ, told the Associated
Press.


SIMON PROPERTY: CA Consumers Launch Suit Over Gift-Card Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles consumer attorneys have filed a class action over
gift-card policies against Simon Property Group, other malls
that Simon owns, as well as against Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Bank of
America, The Bradenton Herald reports.  The suit was filed in
Orange County Superior Court, California, by the law offices of
Kevin T. Barnes.

The lawsuit alleges that, by charging monthly service fees so
long as the card remains unused after its purchase, the cards
defraud consumers and violate the state's gift-certificate law.  
The lawsuit seeks repayment of money lost in expired cards,
service fees, attorney's fees and punitive damages.

Large national retailers such as The Gap, Pacific Sunwear,
Target and Macy's are gradually phasing out the paper gift
certificates.  The attorneys hope this lawsuit and others like
it will help resolve the legal issues that have arisen as the
gift cards gradually have replaced the paper gift certificates,
importantly, the issue of whether gift cards covered by the
state laws that regulate gift certificates.  In California, for
example, state law prohibits any gift certificates issued in the
state from having an expiration date.

Gift cards are different from the gift certificates, and while
they have many virtues consumers have found they have many
strings attached.  Mike Klarfeld, an attorney in San Diego who
formerly specialized in consumer lawsuits related to gift
certificates, has moved on to lawsuits about gift cards.  He has
sued Home Depot, Pet Smart and Barnes and Noble over monthly
service fees they charge on unused gift cards.

"Call it anything you want, but (a monthly service fee) has the
same effect as an expiration date," Mr. Klarfeld said.

The state law clarifies the rules for gift cards issued by
California companies, but leaves the situation unsettled for
gift cards issued by national financial institutions.  No
federal law covers gift cards specifically.


US NAVY: DC Court Says Members of Selection Board Should Testify
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Court for the District of Columbia judge
Ricardo Urbina ruled that members and staffers of the US Navy's
chaplain selection boards must testify in two cases, one a class
action, charging the Navy with religious discrimination, the
Online Standard reports.

Current and former Navy chaplains filed the suits, charging the
Navy with favoring liturgical Christians over non-liturgical
Christians, when promoting its chaplains.

Judge Urbina rejected the Navy's argument that the proceedings
should be kept private.  "Without addressing the merits of the
plaintiffs' claims, the court concludes that the plaintiffs have
provided an adequate factual basis for their belief that the
requested testimony will provide evidence of government
misconduct," he wrote, the Online Standard states.  "The various
reports and statistics cited by the plaintiffs are adequate at
this stage to support a belief that the Navy engaged in
discrimination against non-liturgical chaplains."


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Appeals Court Upholds Certification For Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision
granting class certification to a nationwide lawsuit filed
against Washington Mutual Bank, the Seattle Times reports.

The suit alleges that the Bank is improperly assessing charges
when people pay off their loans.  The suit specifically asserts
that the Bank illegally required a $60 fee for a "payoff
statement" that lists how much is still owed.

Appeals Commissioner William Ellis ruled that while, the Company
raised some debatable points, he did not find any "obvious or
probable error" in Superior Court Judge John Erlick's decision
granting certification to the suit.  The ruling means that,
barring further appeal by the Company, the case is headed to
trial.

In a statement yesterday, Washington Mutual said it is studying
whether to appeal the decision issued Thursday by Appeals
Commissioner William Ellis, the Seattle Times reports.  Libby
Hutchinson, a WaMu spokeswoman, said, "While we can't comment on
the specifics of this pending litigation, our company will
continue to vigorously defend our practices in the trial court."

She also noted that WaMu may ask the appeals court to review the
certification ruling after trial.

Rob Williamson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told the Times
that one aspect of the case has been settled, subject to formal
approval next Friday.  The settlement involves up to 15,000
Washington customers who were charged a $43 reconveyance fee
when they finished paying or refinanced their loans.  Under the
settlement, each customer will get a $32 refund, Mr. Williamson
said.  Because only a fraction of eligible customers responded
to mailed and published notices on the settlement, that will
cost the Company between $80,000 and $85,000.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Lenders Risk Homeowners' Mortgage Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gerri Sprague-Damon has inquired about joining a class-action
lawsuit against Washington Mutual Inc.  Ms. Sprague-Damon's
problems with Washington Mutual about its late payments of
various insurance premiums, like homeowners and flood insurance,
are not unique.  As of September 10 of this fiscal year the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development has received 235
complaints about loan servicing, or how the monthly mechanics of
home loans were managed, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.

The mechanics of the payment process followed by Ms. Sprague-
Damon are pretty much standard.  When she took out her home
loan, Ms. Sprague-Damon put money in an escrow account from
which the bank was supposed to pay her annual homeowner's
insurance premiums.  However, in July, Ms. Sprague-Damon learned
her policy would be canceled because the insurer never received
a $108 outstanding balance due in April.  Due to the remiss
conduct of Washington Mutual, Ms Sprague-Damon was forced to
buy insurance from another insurance company at which her
premium payment went from $1,977 to $3,533l.

Ms. Sprague-Damon's problems of late payments by the lenders who
are holding the homeowners' payments in escrow, are not unique.  
Not only has HUD received complaints about these late payments
which endanger the homeowners' various coverages, but the
Florida Department of Financial Services has reported receiving
312 similar complaints for fiscal year ending September 10, this
year, a 44 percent increase from 2002.

Proposed federal legislation in the House of Representatives may
add accuracy and timeliness in escrow account disbursements to
the list of homeowners' rights.  The Homeowner's Escrow Payments
Assurance Act, sponsored by Rep. Robert E. Andrews (R-NJ), would
make mortgage servicers liable for up to three times the damages
a homeowner suffers for escrow slip-ups.  The bill would make it
easier for borrowers to start class actions against servicers
and would levy fines of $1,000 per day for as long as the
scheduled premium for property hazard insurance went unpaid.


WESTERN AUTO: Settles Suit Over Racial Discrimination For $6.8M
---------------------------------------------------------------
The owner of the old Western Auto Supply chain will pay a total
of $6.8 million to up to 5,000 black employees who alleged they
were prevented from working in predominantly white
neighborhoods, Associated Press Newswires reports.

The terms of settlement in the class action became final
recently between the plaintiff employees and Advance Auto Parts,
which acquired Western Auto in 1998, said Wil Florin, who
represents the plaintiffs.

Under the settlement, up to 5,000 black employees who worked for
Western Auto from 1994 to 1998, in 590 stores nationally will
receive checks within weeks.  The checks will range from $150 to
$4,500, depending on how long an employee worked at the auto-
supply chain.

The company has always denied the allegations that they arranged
job placements so as to prevent black employees from working in
predominantly white neighborhoods.  Mr. Florin said no
allegations of discrimination have been made against the new
owner Advance Auto Parts.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


BANK OF AMERICA: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the
Nations Funds family of funds owned and operated by Bank of
America Corporation (NYSE: BAC), and its subsidiaries and
affiliates, between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940.

The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are as follows:

     (1) Nations Capital Growth Fund (Sym: NCGIX, NCGNX, NCAGX,
         NCGRX)

     (2) Nations Marisco 21st Century Fund (Sym: NMTAX, NMTBX,
         NMYCX, NMYAX)

     (3) Nations Marsico Focused Equities Fund (Sym: NFEAX,
         NFEBX, NFECX, NFEPX)

     (4) Nations Marsico Growth Fund (Sym: NMGIX, NGIBX, NMICX,
         NGIPX)

     (5) Nations MidCap Growth Fund (Sym: NEGAX, NEGNX, NEMGX,
         NEGRX)

     (6) Nations Small Company Fund (Sym: NSCGX, NCPBX, NCPCX,
         PSCPX)

     (7) Nations Strategic Growth Fund (Sym: NSGAX, NSIBX, NSGCX
         NSEPX)

     (8) Nations Asset Allocation Fund (Sym: PHAAX, NBASX,
         NAACX, NPRAX)

     (9) Nations MidCap Value Fund (Sym: NAMAX)

    (10) Nations SmallCap Value Fund (Sym: NSVAX)

    (11) Nations Value Fund (Sym: NVLEX, NVLNX, NVALX, NVLUX)

    (12) Nations Global Value Fund (Sym: NVVAX, NGLBX, NCGLX,
         NVPAX)

    (13) Nations International Equity Fund (Sym: NIIAX, NIENX,
         NITRX, NIEQX)

    (14) Nations International Value Fund (Sym: NIVLX, NBIVX,
         NVICX, EMIEX)

    (15) Nations Marsico International Opportunities Fund (Sym:
         MAIOX, MBIOX, MCIOX, NMOAX)

    (16) Nations LargeCap Enhanced Core Fund (Sym: NMIAX, NMIMX)

    (17) Nations LargeCap Index Fund (Sym: NEIAX, NINDX)

    (18) Nations MidCap Index Fund (Sym: NTIAX, NMPAX)

    (19) Nations SmallCap Index Fund (Sym: NMSAX, NMSCX)
    
    (20) Nations LifeGoal(R) Balanced Growth Portfolio (Sym:
         NBIAX, NLBBX, NBICX, NBGPX)
    
    (21) Nations LifeGoal(R) Growth Portfolio (Sym: NLGIX,
         NLGBX, NLGCX, NGPAX)
    
    (22) Nations LifeGoal(R) Income and Growth Portfolio (Sym:
         NLGAX, NLIBX, NIICX, NIPAX)

    (23) Nations Bond Fund (Sym: NSFAX, NSFNX, NSFCX, NSFIX)
    
    (24) Nations Government Securities Fund (Sym: NGVAX, NGVTX,
         NGVSX, NGOVX)
    
    (25) Nations High Yield Bond Fund (Sym: NAHAX, NHYBX,
         NYICX, NYPAX)

    (26) Nations Intermediate Bond Fund (Sym: PHBAX, NTBBX,
         NTBCX, NATAX)
    
    (27) Nations Short-Intermediate Government Fund (Sym: NSIGX,
         NSINX, NSIFX, NSIMX)
    
    (28) Nations Short-Term Income Fund (Sym: NSTRX, NSTIX,
         NSTMX)
    
    (29) Nations Strategic Income Fund (Sym: NDIAX, NDVIX,
         NDVSX, NDIVX)
    
    (30) Nations Convertible Securities Fund (Sym: PACIX, NCVBX,
         PHIKX, NCIAX)

    (31) Nations CA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NACMX, NCMAX)
    
    (32) Nations CA Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: PHCTX, NCMBX,
         NCBCX, NCPAX)
    
    (33) Nations FL Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NFIMX, NFITX, NFINX, NFLBX)
    
    (34) Nations FL Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: NFDAX, NFMNX,
         NFMBX, NFLMX)

    (35) Nations GA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NGMIX, NGITX, NGINX, NGAMX)
    
    (36) Nations Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: NITMX,
         NIMMX, NIMNX, NINMX)
    
    (37) Nations Kansas Municipal Income Fund (Sym: NKIAX,
         NKIBX, NKICX, NKSAX)
    
    (38) Nations MD Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NMDMX, NMITX, NMINX, NMDBX)
    
    (39) Nations Municipal Income Fund, (Sym: NMUIX, NMNNX,
         NMNIX, NNUNX)
    
    (40) Nations NC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NNCIX, NNITX, NNINX, NNIBX)
    
    (41) Nations SC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NSCIX, NISCX, NSICX, NSCMX)
    
    (42) Nations Short-Term Municipal Income Fund (Sym: NSMMX,
         NSMUX, NSMIX)
    
    (43) Nations TN Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NTIMX, NTNNX, NTINX, NTNIX)
    
    (44) Nations TX Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NTITX, NTXTX, NTXCX, NTXIX)
    
    (45) Nations VA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NVAFX, NVANX, NVRCX, NVABX)

    (46) Nations CA Tax-Exempt Reserves (Sym: NATXX)
    
    (47) Nations Cash Reserves (Sym: NPRXX, NIBXX, NRSXX)
    
    (48) Nations Government Reserves (Sym: NGAXX, NGOXX)
    
    (49) Nations Money Market Reserves (Sym: NRBXX, NRTXX)
    
    (50) Nations Municipal Reserves (Sym: NMSXX)
    
    (51) Nations Tax-Exempt Reserves (Sym: NTEXX, NTXXX)
    
    (52) Nations Treasury Reserves (Sym: NTSXX, NTTXX).

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, against defendants Bank of
America Corporation, Banc of America Capital Management, LLC.,
Bank of America Advisors, LLC, Nations Funds Inc., Robert H.
Gordon, Theodore H. Sihpol III., Charles D. Bryceland, Edward J.
Stern, Canary Capital Partners, LLC, Canary Investment
Management, LLC, Canary Capital Partners, Ltd, each of the
Funds, and John Does 1-100.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.  The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds, like Canary, to engage in "late trading"
and "timing" of the Funds' securities.

Late trades are trades received after 4:00 p.m. EST that are
filled based on that day's net asset value, as opposed to being
filled based on the next day's net asset value, which is the
proper procedure under SEC regulations.  Late trading allows
favored investors to make use of market-moving information that
only becomes available after 4 P.M and has been compared to
betting on a horse race that already has been run.

Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a
quick profit and which ordinary investors are told that the
funds police.  Late trading and timing injure ordinary mutual
fund investors -- who are not allowed to engage in these
practices -- and are acknowledged as improper practices by the
Funds.

In return for receiving extra fees from Canary and other favored
investors, Bank of America and its subsidiaries allowed and
facilitated Canary's timing and late trading activities, to the
detriment of class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for
Canary's improper profits.  These practices were undisclosed in
the prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely represented that
the Funds actively police against timing and represented that
post-4 P.M. EST trades will be priced based on the next day's
net asset value and that premature redemptions will be assessed
a charge.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
or Andrei V. Rado by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New
York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail:
nationsfundscase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


BANK ONE: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the
One Group family of funds owned and operated by Bank One
Corporation (NYSE: ONE), and its subsidiaries and affiliates,
between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are as follows:

     (1) One Group Balanced (Sym: OGASX, OAMAX, OAMBX, OGAFX)
     
     (2) One Group Diversified Equity (Sym: PAVGX, OVBGX, ODECX,
         OGVFX)
     
     (3) One Group Diversified International (Sym: PGIEX, ONIBX,
         OGDCX, WOIEX)
     
     (4) One Group Diversified Mid Cap (Sym: PECAX, ODMBX,
         ODMCX, WOOPX)
     
     (5) One Group Equity Income (Sym: OIEIX, OGIBX, OINCX,
         HLIEX)
     
     (6) One Group Equity Index (Sym: OGEAX, OGEIX, OEICX,
         HLEIX)
     
     (7) One Group Health Sciences (Sym: OHSAX, OHSBX, OHSCX,
         OHSIX)
     
     (8) One Group International Equity Index (Sym: OEIAX,
         OGEBX, OIICX, OIEAX)
     
     (9) One Group Investor Balanced  (Sym: OGIAX, OGBBX, OGBCX,
         OIBFX)
     
    (10) One Group Investor Conservative Growth (Sym: OICAX,
         OICGX, OCGCX, ONCFX)
     
    (11) One Group Investor Growth & Income (Sym: ONGIX, ONEBX,
         ONECX, ONGFX)
     
    (12) One Group Investor Growth (Sym: ONGAX, OGIGX, OGGCX,
         ONIFX)
     
    (13) One Group Large Cap Growth (Sym: OLGAX, OGLGX, OLGCX)
     
    (14) One Group Large Cap Value (Sym: OLVAX, OLVBX, OLVCX,
         HLQVX)
     
    (15) One Group Market Expansion Index  (Sym: OMEAX, OMEBX,
         OMECX, PGMIX)
     
    (16) One Group Mid Cap Growth (Sym: OSGIX, OGOBX, OMGCX,
         HLGEX)
     
    (17) One Group Mid Cap Value (Sym: OGDIX, OGDBX, OMVCX,
         HLDEX)
     
    (18) One Group Small Cap Growth (Sym: PGSGX, OGFBX, OSGCX,
         OGGFX)
     
    (19) One Group Small Cap Value (Sym: PSOAX, PSOBX, OSVCX,
         PSOPX)
     
    (20) One Group Technology (Sym: OGTAX, OGTBX, OGTCX, OGTIX)

    (21) One Group Arizona Municipal Bond (Sym: OAMAX, OAMBX,
         OGAFX)
     
    (22) One Group Kentucky Municipal Bond (Sym: OKYAX, ONKBX,
         TRKMX)
     
    (23) One Group Louisiana Municipal Bond (Sym: PGLAX, ONLBX,
         OGLFX)
     
    (24) One Group Michigan Municipal Bond (Sym: PEIAX, OMIBX,
         WOMBX)
     
    (25) One Group Ohio Municipal Bond (Sym: ONOHX, OOHBX,  
         HLOMX)
     
    (26) One Group West Virginia Municipal Bond (Sym: OQWAX,
         OGWBX, OGWFX)
     
    (27) One Group Short-Term Municipal Bond (Sym: OSTAX, OSTBX,
         PGUIX)
     
    (28) One Group Municipal Income (Sym: OTBAX, OTBBX, OMICX,
         HLTAX)
     
    (29) One Group Intermediate Tax-Free (Sym: ONTAX, ONFBX,
         HLTIX)
     
    (30) One Group Tax-Free Bond (Sym: PMBAX, PUBBX, PRBIX)

    (31) One Group Bond (Sym: PGBOX, OBOBX, OBOCX , WOBDX)
     
    (32) One Group Government Bond (Sym: OGGAX, OGGBX, OGVCX,
         HLGAX)
     
    (33) One Group High Yield Bond (Sym: OHYAX, OGHBX, OGHCX,
         OHYFX)
     
    (34) One Group Income Bond (Sym: ONIAX, OINBX, OBDCX, HLIPX)
     
    (35) One Group Intermediate Bond (Sym: OGBAX, OBDBX, OIMCX,
         SEIFX)
     
    (36) One Group Mortgage-Backed Securities (Sym: OMBAX,
         OMBIX)
     
    (37) One Group Short-Term Bond (Sym: OGLVX, OVBXB, OSTCX
         HLLVX)
     
    (38) One Group Treasury & Agency Bond (Sym: OTABX, ONTBX,
         F001CQ, OGTFX)
     
    (39) One Group Ultra Short-Term Bond (Sym: ONUAX, ONUBX,
         OGUCX, HLGFX)

The action, numbered 03 CV 6915, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
defendants Bank One Corp.; Banc One Investment Advisers; One
Group (R) Mutual Funds; Canary Capital Partners, LLC; Canary
Investment Management, LLC; Canary Capital Partners, Ltd; each
of the Funds; and John Does 1-100.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds, like Canary, to engage in "late trading"
and "timing" of the Funds' securities.  Late trades are trades
received after 4:00 p.m. EST that are filled based on that day's
net asset value, as opposed to being filled based on the next
day's net asset value, which is the proper procedure under SEC
regulations.

Late trading allows favored investors to make use of market-
moving information that only becomes available after 4:00 p.m.
and has been compared to betting on a horse race that already
has been run.  Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken
to turn a quick profit and which ordinary investors are told
that the funds police.  Late trading and timing injure ordinary
mutual fund investors -- who are not allowed to engage in these
practices -- and are acknowledged as improper practices by the
Funds. In return for receiving extra fees from Canary and other
favored investors, Bank One Corporation and its subsidiaries
allowed and facilitated Canary's timing and late trading
activities, to the detriment of class members, who paid, dollar
for dollar, for Canary's improper profits.

These practices were undisclosed in the prospectuses of the
Funds, which falsely represented that the Funds actively police
against timing and represented that post-4:00 p.m. EST trades
will be priced based on the next day's net asset value and that
premature redemptions will be assessed a charge.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
or Andrei V. Rado by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New
York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail:
onegroupfundscase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


BANK ONE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Southern
District of Ohio on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and
holders of shares of the One Group International Equity Index
Fund (NASDAQ: OEIAX, OGEBX, OIICX, OIEAX), One Group Diversified
International Fund (NASDAQ: PGIEX, ONIBX, OGDCX, WOIEX), One
Group Small Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PGSGX, OGFBX, OSGCX,
OGGFX), One Group Mid Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: OSGIX, OGOBX,
OMGCX, HLGEX), One Group Mid Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: OGDIX,
OGDBX, OMVCX, HLDEX), One Group Diversified Mid Cap Fund
(NASDAQ: PECAX, ODMBX, ODMCX, WOOPX) and other funds managed by
wholly-owned subsidiaries of Bank One Corporation between March
21, 2002 and April 30, 2003.

The following funds may be subject to the above lawsuit:

     (1) One Group Balanced (Sym: OGASX, OAMAX, OAMBX, OGAFX)
     
     (2) One Group Diversified Equity (Sym: PAVGX, OVBGX, ODECX,
         OGVFX)
     
     (3) One Group Diversified International (Sym: PGIEX, ONIBX,
         OGDCX, WOIEX)
     
     (4) One Group Diversified Mid Cap (Sym: PECAX, ODMBX,
         ODMCX, WOOPX)
     
     (5) One Group Equity Income (Sym: OIEIX, OGIBX, OINCX,
         HLIEX)
     
     (6) One Group Equity Index (Sym: OGEAX, OGEIX, OEICX,
         HLEIX)
     
     (7) One Group Health Sciences (Sym: OHSAX, OHSBX, OHSCX,
         OHSIX)
     
     (8) One Group International Equity Index (Sym: OEIAX,
         OGEBX, OIICX, OIEAX)
     
     (9) One Group Investor Balanced  (Sym: OGIAX, OGBBX, OGBCX,
         OIBFX)
     
    (10) One Group Investor Conservative Growth (Sym: OICAX,
         OICGX, OCGCX, ONCFX)
     
    (11) One Group Investor Growth & Income (Sym: ONGIX, ONEBX,
         ONECX, ONGFX)
     
    (12) One Group Investor Growth (Sym: ONGAX, OGIGX, OGGCX,
         ONIFX)
     
    (13) One Group Large Cap Growth (Sym: OLGAX, OGLGX, OLGCX)
     
    (14) One Group Large Cap Value (Sym: OLVAX, OLVBX, OLVCX,
         HLQVX)
     
    (15) One Group Market Expansion Index  (Sym: OMEAX, OMEBX,
         OMECX, PGMIX)
     
    (16) One Group Mid Cap Growth (Sym: OSGIX, OGOBX, OMGCX,
         HLGEX)
     
    (17) One Group Mid Cap Value (Sym: OGDIX, OGDBX, OMVCX,
         HLDEX)
     
    (18) One Group Small Cap Growth (Sym: PGSGX, OGFBX, OSGCX,
         OGGFX)
     
    (19) One Group Small Cap Value (Sym: PSOAX, PSOBX, OSVCX,
         PSOPX)
     
    (20) One Group Technology (Sym: OGTAX, OGTBX, OGTCX, OGTIX)

    (21) One Group Arizona Municipal Bond (Sym: OAMAX, OAMBX,
         OGAFX)
     
    (22) One Group Kentucky Municipal Bond (Sym: OKYAX, ONKBX,
         TRKMX)
     
    (23) One Group Louisiana Municipal Bond (Sym: PGLAX, ONLBX,
         OGLFX)
     
    (24) One Group Michigan Municipal Bond (Sym: PEIAX, OMIBX,
         WOMBX)
     
    (25) One Group Ohio Municipal Bond (Sym: ONOHX, OOHBX,  
         HLOMX)
     
    (26) One Group West Virginia Municipal Bond (Sym: OQWAX,
         OGWBX, OGWFX)
     
    (27) One Group Short-Term Municipal Bond (Sym: OSTAX, OSTBX,
         PGUIX)
     
    (28) One Group Municipal Income (Sym: OTBAX, OTBBX, OMICX,
         HLTAX)
     
    (29) One Group Intermediate Tax-Free (Sym: ONTAX, ONFBX,
         HLTIX)
     
    (30) One Group Tax-Free Bond (Sym: PMBAX, PUBBX, PRBIX)

    (31) One Group Bond (Sym: PGBOX, OBOBX, OBOCX , WOBDX)
     
    (32) One Group Government Bond (Sym: OGGAX, OGGBX, OGVCX,
         HLGAX)
     
    (33) One Group High Yield Bond (Sym: OHYAX, OGHBX, OGHCX,
         OHYFX)
     
    (34) One Group Income Bond (Sym: ONIAX, OINBX, OBDCX, HLIPX)
     
    (35) One Group Intermediate Bond (Sym: OGBAX, OBDBX, OIMCX,
         SEIFX)
     
    (36) One Group Mortgage-Backed Securities (Sym: OMBAX,
         OMBIX)
     
    (37) One Group Short-Term Bond (Sym: OGLVX, OVBXB, OSTCX
         HLLVX)
     
    (38) One Group Treasury & Agency Bond (Sym: OTABX, ONTBX,
         F001CQ, OGTFX)
     
    (39) One Group Ultra Short-Term Bond (Sym: ONUAX, ONUBX,
         OGUCX, HLGFX)

The complaint charges the One Group Funds, Bank One Corporation,
and certain of its wholly-owned subsidiaries with violations of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 and common law breach of
fiduciary duties in return for substantial fees and other income
for themselves and their affiliates.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the One
Group Funds and the other defendants engaged in illegal and
improper trading practices, in concert with certain
institutional traders, which caused financial injury to the
shareholders of the One Group Funds.

According to the Complaint, the Defendants surreptitiously
permitted certain favored investors, including Defendant Canary
Capital Partners, LLC and Canary Investment Management, LLC
(collectively, ``Canary'') to illegally receive the prior day's
price for orders placed after 4 p.m.  This allowed Canary and
other mutual fund investors who engaged in the same wrongful
course of conduct to capitalize on post 4:00 p.m. information,
while those who bought their mutual fund shares lawfully could
not.

The complaint further alleges that defendants permitted Canary
and other favored investors to engage in ``timing'' of the One
Group Funds whereby these favored investors were permitted to
conduct short-term, ``in and out'' trading of mutual fund
shares, despite explicit restrictions on such activity in the
One Group Funds' prospectuses.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


CHECK POINT: Shepherd Finkelman Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Check
Point Software Technologies, Ltd., (Nasdaq: CHKP), between and
including July 10, 2001 and April 4, 2002.  The class action
lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and:

     (1) Gil Shwed,

     (2) Jerry Ungerman,

     (3) Eyal Desheh,

     (4) Irwin Federman, and

     (5) Alex Vieux

The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued numerous
statements concerning Check Point's revenue growth, product and
marketing initiatives, and increasing revenues and profits while
failing to disclose that demand for the Company's products was
materially declining.

When this information was belatedly disclosed to the market on
April 4, 2002, shares of Check Point fell as low as $20.09, to
close at $22.07, on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact James E. Miller by Phone: 866/540-5505
or by E-mail: jmiller@classactioncounsel.com or contact James C.
Shah by Phone: 877/891-9880 or by E-mail:
jshah@classactioncounsel.com.


CHECK POINT: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Suit in S.D.NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley filed a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of all purchasers of securities of Check Point Software
Technologies, Ltd., (NasdaqNM:CHKP), between July 10, 2001 and
April 4, 2002, inclusive.  The suit is brought against the
Company and:

     (1) Gil Shwed,

     (2) Jerry Ungerman,

     (3) Eyal Desheh,

     (4) Irwin Federman, and

     (5) Alex Vieux

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Throughout the class period, the
complaint alleges, defendants issued numerous statements
concerning Check Point's revenue growth, product and marketing
initiatives, and increasing revenues and profits while failing
to disclose that demand for the Company's products was
materially declining.

When this information was belatedly disclosed to the market on
April 4, 2002, shares of Check Point fell as low as $20.09, to
close at $22.07, on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Lauren Antonino or Jennifer Morris by
Phone: 1-888-873-3999 (toll-free) by E-mail: jlm@classlaw.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.classlaw.com,by clicking  
on Check Point.


DVI INC.: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the publicly traded securities of DVI,
Inc. (Other OTC:DVIXQ.PK) (formerly NYSE:DVI) during the period
between November 7, 2001 and June 27, 2003, inclusive.  The
action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against former Chief Executive
Officer, Michael A. O'Hanlon and Chief Financial Officer, Steven
R. Garfinkel.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between November 7, 2001 and
June 27, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of DVI's
publicly traded securities.

The Complaint alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had failed to timely write down the
         value of certain assets which had become impaired;

     (2) that the Company's accounting and financial reporting
         policies and procedures for non-systematic (non-
         recurring) transactions were inadequate;

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and

    (4) that as a result, the values of the Company's assets,
         net income and earnings per share were materially
         overstated at all relevant times.

The Class Period ends on June 27, 2003. On that date, defendants
DVI shocked the investing public when it announced that the SEC
had rejected its March 30, 2003 quarterly report because it had
not been reviewed by an independent auditor.  The Company also
disclosed that it was continuing to consider the need for the
accounting change, and, if adopted, its net income for the third
quarter of fiscal 2003, its earnings per share for the first
nine months of fiscal 2003 and its net income for the fiscal
year 2002 would all be drastically reduced.

Specifically, the Company's net income for the third quarter of
fiscal 2003 would be reduced by $1.4 million, or 44.47%, its
earnings per share for the nine months ended March 31, 2003
would be reduced by $0.10, or 44.45% and its net income for
fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 would be reduced by $1.395
million or 34.12%.

Investor reaction was swift and negative, with DVI stock falling
from a close of $5.84 on June 26, 2003 to a close of $4.30 on
June 27, 2003, or a single-day decline of more than 26% on very
high trading volume.

For more details, contact Craig Lowther by Mail: 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
(877) 935-7400 by E-mail: clowther@whesq.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.whesq.com


EMERSON RADIO: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Emerson Radio
Corporation (AMEX:MSN) from January 29, 2003 through August 12,
2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing numerous positive statements
throughout the Class Period regarding the Company's growth and
demand for the Company's products.

As alleged in the complaint, these statements were each
materially false and misleading when made as they misrepresented
and omitted the following adverse facts which then existed and
disclosure of which was necessary to make the statements not
false and misleading, including, but not limited to, the
following:

     (1) that Emerson customers were deferring and foregoing
         purchases of product and reducing inventory levels as
         they shifted to just-in-time stocking;

     (2) that since at least March 2003, the outbreak of severe
         acute respiratory syndrome in Asia was dramatically
         reducing Emerson's product demand and supply;

     (3) that Emerson was planning to, and did, discontinue
         Mary-Kate and Ashley and NASCAR brands and business;
         and

     (4) that based on the foregoing, Emerson had no reasonable
         basis to project ``significant'' and ``strong'' growth
         and revenues for fiscal 2004.

On August 12, 2003, the last day of the Class Period, Emerson
shocked the investing public when it released its financial and
operational results for the first quarter of fiscal 2004, ended
June 30, 2003, announcing, among others, a 44.3% revenue decline
in its consumer electronics segment.  In response to this
announcement, shares of Emerson stock fell more than 49% on
August 12, 2003, on heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Stock Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, on behalf of all persons who
purchased securities of Flowserve Corporation (NYSE: FLS)
between October 23, 2001 and September 27, 2002, inclusive,
against the Company, C. Scott Greer (Chairman, President, and
Chief Executive Officer), and Renee J. Hornbaker (Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer).

The complaint alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and/or failed to make material disclosures
about the Company throughout the Class Period.  For example,
defendants:

     (1) misrepresented that the Company's aftermarket sales
         (the Company's "quick turnaround" business) were
         steady, stable and consistent streams of revenue;

     (2) misrepresented that the Company's growth made it less
         dependent upon the chemical and industrial segments,
         which had historically been very sensitive to economic
         downturn;

     (3) failed to disclose that the Company had instructed one
         or more of its plants to stop building inventory as a
         result of the projected (albeit undisclosed) continuing
         decline in sales; and

     (4) without any reasonable basis, projected full year 2002
         earnings at ranges that were unattainable due to the
         declines the Company was experiencing in critical
         business segments.

After the market closed on July 22, 2002, Flowserve's financial
problems began to be revealed.  In a press release dated July
22, 2002, the defendants revealed that the quick turnaround
business, particularly in the chemical and industrial sectors,
had weakened substantially, resulting in the Company's lowering
their previously projected and reaffirmed earnings guidance for
full year 2002 results.

In addition, the defendants admitted during their conference
call with analysts the next day that they had cut back
production of inventory at several plants due to the declining
demand, despite defendant Greer's positive affirmations about
the Company's business between March and May.  In reducing the
previously reaffirmed year end guidance, however, the defendants
still claimed that they could hit the low end of the range
previously held out to the investing public.

The truth continued to emerge on September 27, 2002 when the
Company announced a further reduction in its full year 2002
earnings guidance, admitting that the deterioration of their
quick turnaround business was even worse than they had led the
market previously to believe, particularly in the chemical,
power and general industrial sectors.

In response to this announcement, the Company's shares fell
precipitously over 38% from the previous trading day's closing
price, to $8.70 -- a decline of over 75% from the Class Period
high of $34.90 reached on May 2, 2002.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Michael Miske,
George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New
York, New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make  
reference to Flowserve.


JANUS CAPITAL: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in CO Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Janus High-
Yield Fund (Nasdaq:JAHYX) and Janus Mercury Fund (Nasdaq:JAMRX)
securities between April 1, 2002 through Present, inclusive.  
Janus Capital Management, LLC (NYSE:JNS) is also a defendant in
the case.

The case is pending in the Colorado State Court, against the
company and certain key officers and directors.  The action
charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise by Mail: 261 Old
York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, by Phone:
215-886-1900 or by E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


LORAL SPACE: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who
purchased or acquired the securities of Loral Space &
Communications, Ltd. (OTC Bulletin Board: LRLSQ) between June
30, 2003 and July 15, 2003, inclusive, against Bernard Schwartz,
the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
during the Class Period.


On June 30, 2003, the beginning of the Class Period, Loral made
two announcements that purportedly would assist in strengthening
its balance sheet and its future prospects.  Loral announced
that "it has collected approximately $55 million from Intelsat
representing an acceleration of a receivable for agreed-upon
milestone performance payments" and that Loral had resolved all
outstanding legal disputes with Alcatel thereby eliminating
potential exposure to $350 million in liability to Alcatel and
resulting in an immediate payment of $5 million to Loral and an
$8 million payment within one year of closing.

However, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose that Loral was actively negotiating the sale of six of
its satellites with Intelsat and that Intelsat was pressuring
Loral to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy as a condition of
closing the deal.  Rather than disclose this material
information, the announcement and subsequent statements issued
by defendant Schwartz left potential investors in Loral with the
misleading impression that Loral was "on plan" as discussed in
the prior quarter's conference call, that Loral was not only
current on its debt payments, but also was not in any danger of
default and was focused on preparing for a recovery in its
business.  What the Company communicated to investors was
substantially different than the reality that it was
contemplating a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing.

On July 15, 2003, prior to the market open, and to the horror of
recent investors who had purchased Loral securities based on the
positive news from the Company, Loral announced that it was
filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy as a precondition to an
agreement with Intelsat to sell its six North American
satellites for approximately $1.1 billion.  Once the stock
resumed trading after being halted on the news, the stock lost
90% of its value.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Christopher S.
Hinton, George Peters, or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-
mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make  
reference to Loral.


MUTUAL FUNDS: Brualdi Firm Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm filed a securities class action charging
improper trading practices at mutual fund companies including
Bank One Corporation (NYSE:ONE), Janus Capital Group., Inc.
(NYSE:JNS), Bank of America Corporation (NYSE:BAC), and Strong
Financial Corporation.

The Complaint is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than defendants who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares or other ownership units of one or more of the
mutual funds in the One Group Mutual Fund family between October
1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive, and against the trustees of
One Group Mutual Funds (the ``One Group''), One Group's manager
and investment advisor and the One Group itself.  The Complaint
charges, inter alia, violations of The Investment Companies Act
of 1940 and violation of The Common Law.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the above-
named mutual fund companies engaged in illegal and/or improper
trading practices, in concert with certain institutional
traders, which caused financial injury to the shareholders of
the subject mutual funds, in return for substantial fees and
other income for themselves and their affiliates.

The complaint alleges that the schemes at Bank One, Janus, Bank
of America, and Strong took two primary forms.  First is the
``late trading'' of mutual fund shares by select customers of
the fund (including hedge funds).  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that certain mutual fund investors of the above named
fund companies, including Canary Capital Partners, LLC and
Canary Investment Management, LLC (collectively, ``Canary''),
improperly arranged with defendants that orders placed after 4
p.m. on a given day would illegally receive that day's price (as
opposed to the next day's price, which the order would have
received had it been processed lawfully).  This allowed Canary
and other mutual fund investors who engaged in the same wrongful
course of conduct to capitalize on post 4:00 p.m. information,
while those who bought their mutual fund shares lawfully could
not.

The complaint further alleges that defendants engaged in
wrongful conduct known as ``timing.'' Timing is an investment
technique involving short-term, ``in and out'' trading of mutual
fund shares, designed to exploit inefficiencies in the way
mutual fund companies price their shares.  It is widely
acknowledged that ``timing'' inures to the detriment of long-
term shareholders. Nonetheless, in return for investments from
certain hedge funds and other traders that would increase fund
managers' fees, fund managers entered into undisclosed
agreements to allow them to ``time'' their funds.  

Funds affected include at least the following: Janus Mercury
Fund and the Janus High-Yield Fund; Bank of America's ``Nations
Funds''; Bank One's ``One Group'' funds (the two international
funds, the Small Cap Growth Fund, and two mid cap funds); and
the Strong Growth 20 Fund, Strong Growth Fund, Advisor Mid Cap
Growth Fund, Strong Large Cap Growth Fund, and Strong Dividend
Income Fund.

For more details, contact Richard Brualdi, Kevin T. O'Brien or
Jeanette Olaya by Mail: 29 Broadway, Suite 1515, New York, NY
10006 by Phone: 212-952-0602 or 877-495-1187 (toll free) by Fax:
212-952-0608 by E-mail: rbrualdi@earthlink.net or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


MUTUAL FUNDS: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated several
securities class actions charging improper trading practices
permitted by mutual fund companies including Janus Capital
Group, Inc. (NYSE: JNS), Bank of America Corporation (NYSE:
BAC), Bank One Corporation (NYSE: ONE), and Strong Financial
Corporation.

One class action has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California against
Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) on behalf of purchasers of its
Nations Funds family of funds from May 3, 2001, through July 3,
2003, including:

     (1) Nations International Equity Fund (Nasdaq: NIIAX,
         NIENX, NITRX, NIEQX, NIEPX),

     (2) Nations Small Cap Funds (Nasdaq: NSVAX, NMSCX, NMSAX),

     (3) Nations Convertible Securities Fund (Nasdaq: PACIX),
         and

     (4) Nations Emerging Markets Funds

Another class action was commenced in Colorado state court on
behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and holders of mutual fund
shares of Janus High- Yield Fund (Nasdaq: JAHYX) and Janus
Mercury Fund (Nasdaq: JAMRX News).

Another class action was commenced in Wisconsin state court on
behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and holders of mutual fund
shares of Strong Growth Fund (Nasdaq: SGROX), Strong Large-Cap
Growth Fund (Nasdaq: STRFX), Strong Growth 20 Fund (Nasdaq:
SGTWX), Strong Advisor Mid-Cap Growth (Nasdaq: SMDCX), and
Strong American Dividend Income Fund (Nasdaq: SDVIX).

Another such class action has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey to recover
fees paid by various of these funds to their advisors on behalf
of:

     (i) funds managed by Strong Capital Management, Inc.:
         Strong Growth 20 Fund (Nasdaq: SGTWX), Strong Growth
         Fund (Nasdaq: SGROX), Strong Advisor Mid Cap Growth
         Fund (Nasdaq: SMDCX), Strong Large Cap Growth Fund
         (Nasdaq: STRFX) and Strong American Dividend Income
         Fund (Nasdaq: SDVIX);

    (ii) funds managed by Janus Capital Management LLC: Janus
         Mercury Fund (Nasdaq: JAMRX) and Janus High Yield Fund
         (Nasdaq: JAHYX); and

   (iii) funds managed by Bank One Investment Advisors
         Corporation: One Group Small Cap Growth Fund, One Group
         International Equity Index Fund (Nasdaq: OEIAX, OGEBX,
         OIEAX), One Group Diversified International Fund
         (Nasdaq: OGDCX, ONIBX) and One Group Mid Cap Growth
         Fund (Nasdaq: HLGEX, OGOBX, OMGCX, OSGIX).

The wrongful conduct alleged in and which is the subject of one
or more of these complaints relates to "late trading" of mutual
fund shares by certain customers of the fund (including one or
more hedge funds).  Specifically, the conduct complained of
relates to allegations that certain of those who invested in
certain of the various defendants' mutual fund, including Canary
Capital Partners, LLC and Canary Investment Management, LLC
(collectively, "Canary"), improperly arranged to place orders
after 4 p.m. Eastern Time on a given day at that day's price
(instead of the next day's price, which the order would have
received had it been processed lawfully).

This allowed Canary and any other mutual fund investors who
engaged in the same wrongful course of conduct to capitalize on
information available only after 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time while
others who bought shares in the subject mutual funds could not
so benefit.

The wrongful conduct alleged in and which is the subject of one
or more of these complaints relates to "timing."  As used,
"timing" is an investment technique involving short-term, "in
and out" trading of mutual fund shares designed to take
advantage of inefficiencies in the way mutual fund companies
price their shares, particularly shares of international funds.  
It is alleged, further, that timing, typically not condoned by
mutual fund companies, was permitted by select investors to the
detriment of other mutual fund investors and for the benefit of
the mutual fund companies.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410-332-0030 or by E-mail:
piven@pivenlaw.com


STRONG CAPITAL: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in WI Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Strong
Growth Fund (Nasdaq:SGROX), Strong Large-Cap Growth Fund
(Nasdaq:STRFX), Strong Growth 20 Fund (Nasdaq:SGTWX), Strong
Advisor Mid-Cap Growth (Nasdaq:SMDCX) and Strong Dividend Income
Fund (Nasdaq:SDVIX) securities between October 26, 2002 through
Present, inclusive.  Strong Capital Management, Inc. is also a
defendant in the case.

The case is pending in the Wisconsin State Court, against the
company and certain key officers and directors.  The action
charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise by Mail: 261 Old
York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, by Phone:
215-886-1900 or by E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


STRONG FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the
Strong Funds family of funds (the "Funds") owned and operated by
Strong Financial Corporation, and its subsidiaries and
affiliates, between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940.

The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are as follows:

     (1) Strong Advisor Bond Fund (SVBDX, SADBX, SABCX, SIBNX,
         F008W1, SBDIX)

     (2) Strong Advisor Municipal Bond Fund (SAMAX, SMBBX,
         F00BH8)

     (3) Strong Advisor Municipal Select Fund (SMUIX, STAEX,
         F005LZ, F005M9)

     (4) Strong Advisor Short Duration Bond A Fund (STSDX,
         SSDKX, SSHCX, STGBX)

     (5) Strong Advisor Common Stock Fund (SCSAX, SCSKX, STSAX,
         STCSX)

     (6) Strong Advisor Endeavor Large Cap Fund (STALX, F008GO)

     (7) Strong Advisor Focus Fund (F005MO, F005M7, F005LT)

     (8) Strong Advisor International Core Fund (F008GQ, F008GR,
         F008GS)

     (9) Strong Advisor Large Company Core Fund (SLGAX, F00AO2,
         F00AO3, SLCKX)

    (10) Strong Advisor Mid-Cap Growth Fund (F005LQ, F005M1,
         F005LO, SMDCX)

    (11) Strong Advisor Small Cap Value Fund (SMVAX, SMVBX,
         SMVCX, SSMVX)

    (12) Strong Advisor Strategic Income Fund (SASAX, F005L7,
         SASCX)

    (13) Strong Advisor Technology Fund (SASCX, F005LM, F005LM)

    (14) Strong Advisor U.S. Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund (F009D0,
         F009D1)

    (15) Strong Advisor U.S. Value (F005M2, F005M5, F005MA,
         SEQKX, SEQIX)

    (16) Strong Advisor Utilities and Energy Fund (SUEAX,
         F00AED, F00AEE, F009D5)

    (17) Strong All Cap Value Fund (F009D5)

    (18) Strong Asia Pacific Fund (SASPX)

    (19) Strong Balanced Fund (STAAX)

    (20) Strong Blue Chip Fund (SBCHX)

    (21) Strong Discovery Fund (STDIX)

    (22) Strong Dividend Income Fund (SDVIX, F008VY)

    (23) Strong Dow 30 Value Fund (SDOWX)

    (24) Strong Endeavor Fund (SENDX)

    (25) Strong Energy Fund (SENGX)

    (26) Strong Enterprise Fund (SENAX, F04ANX, SENTX, SEPKX)

    (27) Strong Growth & Income Fund (SGNAX, SGNIX, SGRIX,
         SGIKX)

    (28) Strong Growth 20 Fund (SGTWX, SGRTX, SGRAX, F00B67,
         SGRNX)

    (29) Strong Growth Fund (SGROX, SGRKX)

    (30) Strong Index 500 Fund (SINEX)

    (31) Strong Large Cap Core Fund (SLCRX)

    (32) Strong Large Cap Growth Fund (STRFX)

    (33) Strong Large Company Growth Fund (SLGIX, F04ANY)

    (34) Strong Mid Cap Disciplined Fund (SMCDX)

    (35) Strong Multi-Cap Value Fund (SMTVX)

    (36) Strong Opportunity Fund (SOPVX, SOPFX, F00AH2)

    (37) Strong Overseas Fund (F00B4I, SOVRX)

    (38) Strong Small Company Value Fund (F009D3)

    (39) Strong Technology 100 Fund (STEKX)

    (40) Strong U.S. Emerging Growth Fund (SEMRX)

    (41) Strong Value Fund (STVAX)

    (42) Strong Life Stages - Aggressive Portfolio Fund (SAGGX)

    (43) Strong Life Stages - Conservative Portfolio Fund
         (SCONX)

    (44) Strong Life Stages - Moderate Portfolio Fund (SMDPX)

    (45) Strong Corporate Bond Fund (SCBDX, SCBNX, STCBX)

    (46) Strong Corporate Income Fund (SCORX)

    (47) Strong High-Yield Bond Fund (SHBAX, SHYYX, STHYX)

    (48) Strong Government Securities Fund (SGVDX, F00B66,
         SGVIX, STVSX)

    (49) Strong High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund (SHYLX)

    (50) Strong Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (SIMBX)

    (51) Strong Municipal Bond Fund (SXFIX)

    (52) Strong Minnesota Tax-Free Fund (F00B64, F00B65, F00B63)

    (53) Strong Wisconsin Tax-Free Fund (F0068K)

    (54) Strong Short-Term High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund
         (SSHMX, SSTHX, STHBX)

    (55) Strong Short-Term Municipal Bond Fund (F00B62, STSMX)

    (56) Strong Short-Term Income Fund (F00B1K)

    (57) Strong Short-Term Bond Fund (SSTVX, SSHIX, SSTBX)

    (58) Strong Ultra Short-Term Income Fund (SADAX, SADIX,
         STADX)

    (59) Strong Ultra Short-Term Municipal Income Fund (SMAVX,
         SMAIX, SMUAX)

    (60) Strong Florida Municipal Money Market Fund (SLFXX)

    (61) Strong Heritage Money Fund (SHMXX)

    (62) Strong Money Market Fund (SMNXX)

    (63) Strong Municipal Money Market Fund (SXFXX)

    (64) Strong Tax-Free Money Fund (STMXX)

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendants Strong
Financial Corporation, Strong Capital Management, Inc., and each
of the Funds' registrants and issuers, Edward J. Stern, Canary
Capital Partners, LLC, Canary Investment Management, LLC, Canary
Capital Partners, Ltd, each of the Funds, and John Does 1-100.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.  

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds, like Canary, to engage in the "timing" of
their transactions in the Funds' securities.  Timing is
excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a quick profit.
Timing injures ordinary mutual fund investors -- who are not
allowed to engage in such practices -- and is acknowledged as an
improper practice by the Funds.  

In return for receiving extra fees from Canary and other favored
investors, Strong Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries
allowed and facilitated Canary's timing activities, to the
detriment of class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for
Canary's improper profits.  These practices were undisclosed in
the prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely represented that
the Funds actively police against timing.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman,
and Andrei V. Rado by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl.,
New York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail:
strongfundscase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Files Stock Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a
securities class action against SureBeam Corporation
(NasdaqNM:SUREE) and two of the Company's senior officers on
behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of SureBeam
during the period between March 16, 2001 and August 20, 2003,
inclusive in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California.

The Complaint alleges that SureBeam, a provider of electronic
irradiation systems and services for the food industry, and two
of the Company's senior officers, violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial results.

In particular, defendants caused SureBeam to report inflated
revenues and earnings for 2000 and 2001. Indeed, the Company
fired its auditor Deloitte & Touche, LLP (Deloitte) when it
challenged the appropriateness of SureBeam's improper revenue
recognition practices during the Class Period.

In May 2000, SureBeam entered a contract with Tech Ion
Industrila Brasil, S.A. (Tech Ion) for the sale of eleven
electronic food irradiation systems worth approximately $55
million in revenue over three years.  The complaint alleges that
defendants caused SureBeam to recognize $22.4 million in
revenues in 2000 and 2001 from this contract although they knew,
or for their recklessness would have known, that Tech Ion would
not pay this amount.  The complaint charges that Deloitte
specifically questioned the Company's recognition of revenues
from Tech Ion.

Disclosure of the true facts about the Company's results at the
end of the Class Period caused the share price of SureBeam to
plummet.  During the Class Period, the shares had traded at a
high of $19.00 on May 29, 2001.  After the Class Period, when
the true facts were disclosed, the price fell to $1.55.

For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone:
(888) 476-6529 by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.pomlaw.com


SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities
of SureBeam Corporation (formerly NASDAQ: SURE; currently:
SUREE) from March 16, 2001 through August 20, 2003, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that SureBeam, a company which provides
electronic irradiation systems and services for the food
industry, and certain of its officers and directors issued
materially false and misleading statements in order to inflate
the price of SureBeam's stock and make its $60 million IPO
successful.  Specifically, defendants improperly recorded
transactions included in SureBeam's 2000-2001 financial results
by recognizing revenue from a non-affiliated party when it knew
that the customer did not have the ability to pay.

On July 30, 2003, SureBeam announced that it was going to delay
the release of its second quarter earnings from the planned date
of July 31, 2003 until August 12, 2003.  On August 12, 2003,
SureBeam announced that it was going to further delay the
release of its second quarter earnings until after the Company's
Form 10-Q for the second quarter had been filed.

On August 21, 2003, SureBeam announced that it was dismissing
its independent auditor Deloitte & Touche LLP ("Deloitte") due
to issues that Deloitte had with the Company's revenue
recognition policy.

For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel, PC by Phone:
(800) 797-5499, or by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com.   


                        *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.  The Asbestos Defendant Profiles is backed by an
online database created to respond to custom searches. Go to
http://litigationdatasource.com/asbestos_defendant_profiles.html

                        *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, Aurora
Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2003.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *